Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 775e784
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas
Long distance trinket trade: Early Bronze Age obsidian
from the Negev
Steven A. Rosena,*, Robert H. Tykotb,1, Michael Gottesmanc
a
Archaeological Division, Ben-Gurion University, PO Box 653, Beersheva, Israel
Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, SOC107,
Tampa, FL 33620-8100, USA
c
Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, A210 Fowler Museum Building, UCLA Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
b
Received 22 August 2002; received in revised form 3 January 2005
Abstract
The discovery of three small obsidian flakes at the Camel Site in the central Negev, Israel, constitutes the first discovery of
obsidian in Early Bronze Age contexts in the Negev and Sinai. Obsidian hydration analysis and X-ray microprobe analysis confirm
the association of the artifacts with the site and the period, and indicate origins in Eastern Anatolia, in significant contrast to the
exclusively Central Anatolian source of Southern PPNB obsidian. The structure of the obsidian trade system in the Early Bronze
Age seems to contrast significantly with its Neolithic predecessor, and may be related to a system of pastoral nomadic exchange.
Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Obsidian; Negev; Early Bronze Age; Anatolia; Pastoral nomadism; Exchange; Hydration; X-ray microprobe
1. Introduction
The reconstruction and interpretation of ancient
exchange networks based on analyses of obsidian
artifacts is a well-established archaeological tool. Chemical analyses based on various techniques have long
provided a ‘fingerprint’ for sourcing raw materials (e.g.
[55,65]), and hydration analyses can provide some
measure of chronology (e.g. [1]). In the Near East, the
Neolithic obsidian exchange network has long been the
subject of research on the nature of early long distance
trade (e.g. [48,49,13,43]).
The recovery of three small obsidian artifacts (Fig. 1)
from the Camel Site (e.g. [53]) in the Central Negev,
Israel (Fig. 2), constitutes the first discovery of obsidian
* Corresponding author. Fax: C972 8 6472913.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S.A. Rosen), rtykot@
cas.usf.edu (R.H. Tykot), [email protected] (M. Gottesman).
1
Tel.: C1 813 974 7279; fax: C1 813 974 2668.
0305-4403/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jas.2005.01.001
in Early Bronze Age contexts (ca. 3000 BC) in the
deserts of the Negev and Sinai. However, in the light of
the well established presence of obsidian in the Negev
during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (e.g. [43,12,13]),
especially from the site of Nahal Lavan 109 [9,10], the
issue of the specific origins of the three pieces needed to
be addressed before conclusions concerning the significance of the discovery could be drawn. Hydration
analysis of the artifacts supports an Early Bronze Age
attribution, and trace element analysis using an electron
microprobe indicates a source in Eastern Anatolia, in
significant contrast to the exclusively Central Anatolian
source of Negev PPNB obsidian.
Thus, the materials from the Camel Site extend the
life span of the informal down-the-line exchange system
both another period forward in time, one phase beyond
the previously documented Chalcolithic [68], and deeper
into the desert than in that phase. Interpretation of this
trinket trade can shed further light on early desert
pastoral societies.
776
S.A. Rosen et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 775e784
Fig. 1. Three obsidian artifacts recovered from the Camel Site.
Left = J30c, Middle = M27d and Right = M28c.
2. The Camel Site
The Camel Site [53] is a small encampment, ca.
400 m2 in total area, situated some 200 m north of the
Ramon Crater (makhtesh), the largest of the three
erosional cirques in the Central Negev (Fig. 2). Architecturally, the site comprised two irregularly shaped
enclosures abutting one another with smaller rooms
attached to the periphery (Fig. 3). This general pattern
of enclosure and attached rooms, reflecting pastoral pen
and hut/tent compounds, is typical of the Early Bronze
Age in the southern Levantine deserts (e.g. [52,31,
32,36,5]). Four cairns are located just outside the
building remains and a fifth is integrated into the
compound structures.
The material culture assemblage recovered from the
Camel Site is varied, including a large lithic assemblage
of waste and formal tools, ceramics, copper items,
haematite, quartz crystals, seashells and seashell beads,
ostrich eggshell fragments and beads, and millstones
with debris from their manufacture [50,54]. The ceramic
assemblage included primarily holemouth cooking and
storage ware, and the lithic tool assemblage most
notably included microlithic drills, microlithic lunates
(= transverse arrowheads), tabular and other scrapers,
blade tools including a few rare sickles, and ad hoc
elements. With the exception of a few sherds attributable to the Intermediate Bronze Age (= Early Bronze
IV = Middle Bronze I, ca. 2000e2200 BC), the entire
material culture assemblage accords well with an Early
Bronze Age IeII attribution. This, in turn, well matches
radiocarbon determinations of 4345 G 65 BP (RT-3083)
calibrated (1s) to 3080e2880 BC and 4115 G 50 BP
(RT-2043) calibrated (1s) to 2860e2580 BC. Examination of the actual calibration curve [45] shows a higher
probability of an attribution earlier in the range of the
second date, thus indeed in close accord with the first
date. Both of these dates derive from charcoal from
small hearths associated with the occupation surface
of the site. Another date, 3235 G 55 BP (RT-3082),
calibrated to 1600e1430 BC, can be rejected as aberrant
given the absence of material culture attributable to this
period, not only in the site, but in the entire region. The
final date, RT-3084, is modern.
As indicated by the material culture and the
radiocarbon dates, the site is basically a single period
occupation with later ephemeral presence at the end
of the third millennium BC. Stratigraphically, it was
excavated in three units, the surface layer, an upper
yellow loess, and a lower organic horizon consisting of
a mixture of the yellow loess and gray ashy matrix. The
lower horizon was found only in the enclosures and is
suggested to be a degraded dung layer. The large size
of the material culture assemblage, over 25,000 lithic
artifacts, and the consensus view that the Negev Early
Bronze Age is a pastoral nomadic society, suggest seasonally repeated occupations of the site (e.g. [53]).
3. The artifacts
Three small obsidian artifacts were recovered from
the Camel Site (Fig. 1). The obsidian itself is black with
some gray banding. All three were recovered in the
southeast quadrant of the site, in fact, outside of the
actual architectural remains (Fig. 3). Dimensions, provenience and technical type are summarized in Table 1.
Each piece shows a well-defined bulb of percussion and
a narrow striking platform. None show characteristics
associated with the more standardized knapping technologies of the 3rde4th millennia BC, for example the
bladelet technologies of the Southern Levantine deserts
(e.g. [26,51: pp. 65e67]). Although one piece (M27d) is
technically a blade, it is clear that it is technologically an
elongated flake. All three pieces show edge damage
caused by trampling and sandblasting, and none show
convincing evidence for intentional retouch. Two (M28c,
J30c) show broken edges. Dorsal scarring, reflecting
previous flake removals, is present only on one piece
(M27d). One flake (M28c) has a hinge fracture.
The presence of only three obsidian artifacts on the
site, and the total excavation of the site with 100% dry
sieving through 2e3 mm mesh, indicate that the flakes
were imported as flakes and not knapped on-site. Given
the small size of the pieces of obsidian, the absence of
S.A. Rosen et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 775e784
777
Fig. 2. Map of sites and locations mentioned in text. 1. Arad, 2. Gilat, 3. Bingöl sources, 4. Nemrut sources, 5. Beisamun, Munhata, and Abu Zureiq,
6. Ramad, Ghoraife, and Aswad.
retouch or evidence for intentional modification, and the
absence of standardized morphologies (notwithstanding
the technical bladelet attribution of one piece), utilitarian functions are difficult to imagine.
4. Obsidian hydration analysis
Obsidian hydration dating (OHD) converts a hydration layer to an absolute date using the equation:
x = kt2, where x is the hydration rind width in microns
(mm), k is the established hydration rate for inward
diffusion of molecular water at a specific temperature/
relative humidity, and t is time.
Current thinking on obsidian hydration dating is best
summarized by three major assumptions (cf. [56]):
1. Obsidian sources will have a range of hydration
rates that is a function of the variation in intrinsic
water content [39,56e58].
2. There is no observable relationship between trace
element concentrations and the intrinsic water
content [23,59].
3. Ambient temperature and relative humidity conditions significantly influence the rate of obsidian
hydration [23,37e40,59].
Given these assumptions, a piece specific hydration
rate method, applied here, utilizes three analytical
procedures: (1) measurement of the hydration rind
thickness, (2) measurement or estimation of soil temperature and relative humidity [60], and (3) calculation of rate
constants determined from glass composition (the Ambrose/Stevenson relative density/intrinsic water method
[e.g. [1,56]]). In practice, the accurate determination of the
rind width in microns is the greatest variable in OHD due
primarily to variable weathering processes.
This approach to the estimation of hydration rates
differs from earlier methods that used a straight line
778
S.A. Rosen et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 775e784
Fig. 3. Plan of Camel Site with location of obsidian artifacts, indicated
by B. Other numbers refer to loci. Artifacts in Fig. 1 can be located by
reference to grid squares.
function or were empirically derived, wherein hydration
rim depths were ‘matched’ to associated non-obsidian
dating information to create a site specific hydration
rate. The method used here results in a hydration rate
for each artifact. Given the need to test the archaeological associations, hydration rates could not be ‘matched’
to the actual Camel Site date, ca. 3000 BC, for obvious
reasons of logic. However, in order to better control the
relative dating of the artifacts, samples were also run
from the known age site of Nahal Lavan 109, an early
Pre-Pottery Neolithic B site, dating to the first half of
the ninth millennium BC (calibrated) about whose
associations there was no question.
For this analysis, two or three slides were made for
each sample. This was done due to the difficulty in finding
a reading from an accurate rind. The rind thickness was
measured by taking five independent measurements from
thin sections under a Jenaval model polarizing light
microscope with a Leitz filar micrometer attachment at
Table 1
Summary of basic features of obsidian artifacts
Provenience
Length
Width
Thick
Mass
Description
M27d upper
layer
M28c upper
layer
J30c surface
layer
34 mm
17 mm
4.8 mm
2.34 gm
small blade
25
14
2.5
0.80
17
19
4.0
0.65
small broken
flake
small broken
flake
625! power. Only clearly visible intact hydration rinds
with well-defined diffusion fronts are measured. All
reported measurements are accurate to within G0.2 mm.
Although this measurement error in theory could be used
to calculate a confidence range for the date, other factors,
such as environmental change over time, may cause
variation in hydration rate, and deviation between
Hydration Years and Calendar Years. Calculation of
dates based on the piece specific rate method uses only
the smallest verified rind from each sample, based on the
assumption that the smallest measurement is more likely
to date the last knapping episode.
There is a quantifiable proxy relationship between
relative density and intrinsic water [57]. The density
measurement utilizes the weight in air vs. weight in
liquid of each sample of obsidian taking advantage of
the Archimedean principle. This gravimetric method
was utilized here. Weights were taken on a scale valid to
four decimal places (using a Mettler AG104 balance)
using a heavy liquid to increase surface adhesion and
reduce bubbles thereby reducing errors. The algorithms
that determine how to go from density to water content
to effect on hydration rate is available in software from
Dr. Stevenson. These algorithms include correction
factors for calculating density for the special liquid’s
temperature and for laboratory to laboratory calibration using a master quartz wedge.
For the environmental factors, relative humidity
(RH) was estimated to be 97% (from salt cell data as
measured from similar sites in the California Great
Basin). For effective hydration temperature (EHT), the
more sensitive and more important factor, weather
station data from Mitzpe Ramon was used for the
Camel Site and data from Sderot used for Nahal Lavan
109. This factor was also compared with similar data
from the California Great Basin Death Valley and
Mojave weather stations and with salt cell data from
Inyo-182 (another site in the western Great Basin area).
The results of the obsidian hydration dating for these
two sites (Table 2) are somewhat better than simple
relative dating. As an absolute dating technique,
however, these results are promising but suffer from
two major problems: sample size and rind measurement.
For the Camel Site, only three artifacts were recovered and available for measurement. The water
content percentages were very consistent and it is felt
that the environmental factors are reasonable, although
salt cell data would be preferable. The rind size, however, measures 6.1 mm on OHL 16200 and this is the
‘cleanest’ reading. For 16198 the rind read 5.0 mm and
for 16199 the rind was 5.2 mm but both are on pieces
that showed sandblasting. There is no known method of
determining how much of the outer edge has been worn
away. We have arbitrarily added 10% to the rind
readings of three samples (two from the Camel Site
and one from Nahal Lavan 109) in order to provide
779
S.A. Rosen et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 775e784
Table 2
Obsidian hydration data summary
OHL
Camel
16198
16199
16200
Prov.
USF
Rind (mm)
M27d
Upper
M28c
Upper
J30c
Surface
499
499
500
501
Nahal Lavan 109
16222
16223
16224
16225
16226
Weight (g)
EHT
RH%
RH by wt.
Hydr. rate
5.0
5.5
5.2
5.7
6.1
2.34
22.37
0.97
0.1105
6.6
0.80
22.37
0.97
0.0989
5.5
0.65
22.37
0.97
0.0958
5.2
10.5
11.6
3.2
NHV
4.4
11.4
11.4
1.41
26.40
0.97
0.1279
13.0
2.89
1.89
0.54
2.39
2.39
26.40
26.40
26.40
26.40
26.40
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
ÿ0.0036
0.2304
0.3881
6.7352
0.1279
13.0
28.7
52.9
757.9
13.0
Age (BP years)
3801
4597
4943
5981
7128
8536
10328
aberrant
aberrant
aberrant
aberrant
9937
BCE
1851
2647a
2993
4031a
5178
6586
8378a
7987b
EHT for the Camel Site is taken from Mitzpe Ramon, EHT for Nahal Lavan 109 is taken from Sderot identical to Death Valley and the Mojave
Desert stations. NHV = no hydration value.
a
Added 10% to rind to adjust for sandblasted surface.
b
Water content estimated using sample 16222 measurement.
a perspective on the possible variability in the dates. The
resultant range of ‘roughly usable’ dates for the Camel
Site is 1850e5200 BC.
For Nahal Lavan 109, five debitage samples were
utilized. Only OHL 16222 had both a rhyolitic level
water percentage (0.13% by weight) and a readable rind
of 10.5 mm (dating provided at 10.5 and at 11.6 mm or
plus 10% to possibly account for weathering). Samples
OHL 16223, 16224, and 16225 had both very erratic
water contents and no reasonable sized rind. Sample
OHL 16226 did exhibit a good readable rind at 11.4 mm
but the water content (at 4.52%) is off scale. So, to
provide at least one other date, the relative density and
thus water content of 16222 was used. The result
suggests a rough range for Nahal Lavan 109 of 6600e
8400 BC, according reasonably well with the Pre-Pottery
Neolithic B cultural attribution.
For our purposes, the key result of the hydration
analysis is the clear distinction that can be drawn
between the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B materials and those
deriving from the Early Bronze Age. In other words, the
Camel Site obsidian reflects a contemporary connection
with Anatolia, and not the mere looting or collection of
materials from local Neolithic sites like Nahal Lavan
109. This distinction is also supported by the differing
water contents of the artifacts, suggesting the likelihood
of different sources. The chemical composition analyses
presented below support the likelihood of different
sources, indirectly supporting the idea of chronological
distinction.
5. Chemical analysis
Obsidian from geological sources in Turkey is wellknown at Mesolithic and Neolithic sites in southern
Anatolia and the Levant [11,48,49,67,43,14,12,30], and
has even been identified as far west as Sitagroi in
northeastern Greece [3]; at the same time, obsidian from
sources in eastern Turkey and Armenia was distributed
to Mesopotamia and also the Levant [8,30]. While the
central and eastern Anatolian sources were considered
to be the most likely sources for the Camel Site samples,
Aegean, Caucasian, and Red Sea sources were not
excluded as possibilities (cf. [65,69]).
Neutron activation analysis has been the most widely
used method for the characterization of archaeological
materials, but it does not provide bulk compositional
data, it is not inexpensive, and commonly is destructive
to artifacts. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that
nearly all of the Mediterranean, European, and Near
Eastern obsidian sources may be distinguished based on
their major element chemistry [18,33,61e64]. Given the
glossy, homogeneous nature of obsidian, X-ray analysis
using the electron microprobe is a good alternative
analytical technique for sourcing since only a tiny 1-mm
sample is required for quantitative analysis, the instrumental cost is on the order of only five U.S. dollars
per sample, and a batch of 18 samples can be prepared
and analyzed in several hours. This technique has been
used for obsidian sourcing in Europe [7], the Mediterranean [61,62], Anatolia [33], and East Africa [41,42].
Samples 1 mm in size were removed from the Camel
Site artifacts, mounted in a 1-inch diameter epoxy disk,
and polished flat using successively finer grinding
compounds. Nine elements were then quantitatively
determined using an electron microprobe equipped with
wavelength dispersive spectrometers. Standard mineral
and rock reference materials were analyzed to insure the
accuracy of the analyses and their comparability with
other laboratories and other techniques; concentrations
780
S.A. Rosen et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 775e784
as low as 100 ppm of some elements are detected, and
precision is better than G5% for most elements e
almost always better than the range in variation within
a single obsidian source and, more importantly, far
better than expected or known differences between
sources. Two spots 40 mm in diameter were analyzed
on each sample to insure against heterogeneity; the
beam was positioned with an optical microscope to
avoid analyzing microlite inclusions. The resulting data
were then normalized to 99% to eliminate the effects of
variable water content, and to enable comparison with
existing obsidian source data produced using similar
techniques (e.g. [18,20e22,7,33,61]). Further details on
the methodology, instrumentation, and standard reference materials used have been published previously
[61,64]. Most importantly, while analysis of both
artifacts and geological samples using the same instrument and techniques would resolve any questions
about comparing results from different laboratories,
such comparisons have been successfully applied within
the Mediterranean for these same techniques and
laboratories [19,62,64].
All three Camel Site obsidian artifacts have alkaline
affinities (Table 3, high alkalies and iron, and low
aluminum concentrations), contrasting with most
Mediterranean and Near Eastern obsidian flows, and
essentially eliminating them as potential sources for the
Camel artifacts. For the remaining peralkaline sources
(Pantelleria, Bingöl, Nemrut Dağ, and the Red Sea
region), some analytical data have been published by
[33,28,29,44], and [21,22], but other than for Pantelleria
relatively few samples from these sources have been
analyzed for both major and trace elements. This is
significant in that the statistical heterogeneity or range
of values for most of these sources is not that well
characterized.
Unfortunately, despite a large chronological gap in
their age of formation, some of the Nemrut Dağ
outcrops (of Quaternary age) are very similar in
chemical composition to Bingöl (late Miocene) making
it difficult to confidently assign artifacts to one source
rather than the other. Nevertheless, the values obtained
by microprobe in this study are similar to those obtained
by XRF analysis [21,33,44], and clearly different from
the other Mediterranean and Near Eastern sources (note
the similarity in results by the two techniques for
Sardinia A obsidian in Fig. 4).
While two of the Camel Site artifacts tested (M28c,
J30c) have virtually identical major element compositions to each other, the third artifact tested (M27d) has
noticeably higher silicon and aluminum, and lower
calcium, potassium, and iron concentrations, suggesting
that they may have come from different geological
sources. The Fig. 4 plot using Fe2O3, CaO, Na2O, and
Al2O3 ratios shows that the first two artifacts appear to
match best with Bingöl, while the third seems to better
fit with the Nemrut Dağ 2 (south) locality. While such
specific attributions could be confirmed through analysis
of both artifacts and geological samples using the same
instrument (and by doing trace element analyses as
well), such a specific attribution is not critical for our
interpretation of obsidian finds at the Early Bronze Age
Camel Site.
Our attribution of the Camel Site obsidian to Bingöl
and/or Nemrut Dağ south in Eastern Anatolia, while
surprising for the time period involved, is at least
Table 3
Electron microprobe analyses of obsidian artifacts from the Camel Site
Artifact # USF #
SiO2
Al2O3
TiO2
Fe2O3
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
MnO
Total
Raw data
M27d
M27d
M28c
M28c
J30c
J30c
74.40
74.61
74.88
74.45
73.89
73.94
11.09
11.08
10.61
10.57
10.58
10.42
0.10
0.10
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.13
2.85
2.82
3.36
3.34
3.26
3.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.09
0.13
0.14
0.16
0.14
5.64
5.74
5.56
5.42
5.50
5.58
4.14
4.07
4.45
4.49
4.33
4.38
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
98.35
98.60
99.16
98.59
97.91
97.90
74.90
74.76
74.74
11.14
10.60
10.62
0.10
0.12
0.12
2.85
3.35
3.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.14
0.15
5.72
5.50
5.60
4.13
4.48
4.40
0.04
0.04
0.05
99.00
99.00
99.00
n=9
n = 33
73.49
71.86
11.34
9.40
0.19
0.35
3.68
6.02
0.03
0.04
0.20
0.31
5.91
6.55
4.07
4.27
0.09
0.20
99.00
99.00
n = 12
72.76
12.16
0.20
3.16
0.03
0.33
5.76
4.52
0.09
99.00
n=3
72.55
10.88
0.27
4.61
0.03
0.29
5.90
4.33
0.14
99.00
499a
499b
500a
500b
501a
501b
Standardized
M27d
499
M28c
500
J30c
501
Geological
Bingöl
Nemrut
Dağ 1
Nemrut
Dağ 2
Nemrut
Dağ 3
Geological XRF data from [21] standardized for direct comparison.
S.A. Rosen et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 775e784
(CaO+Na2O)/Al2O3
0.8
0.7
SA (RHT)
SA (VMF)
M27d
M28c
J30c
Bingol
Nemrut Dag 1
Nemrut Dag 2
Nemrut Dag 3
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Fe2O3/Al2O3
Fig. 4. Electron microprobe results for the Camel Site artifacts (filled
symbols), and XRF data [21] averages for geological sources Bingöl
(n = 9) and Nemrut Dağ 1 (n = 33), 2 (n = 12), and 3 (n = 3).
consistent with the earlier distribution of obsidian from
this source region to sites in the Levant including
Ramad, Ghoraife, Aswad, Beisamoun, Munhata, and
Abu Zureiq, although neither Bingöl nor Nemrut Dağ
obsidian had been identified south of the Syrian desert
or Upper Mesopotamia [15: Fig. 16b].
781
routes, the key issue is really the fact that in the PrePottery Neolithic B one can trace a continuum of
obsidian from central Anatolia through the western
Levant and down to the deserts of the southern Levant,
in a fall-off curve interpreted by Renfrew [46,47] as
down-the-line trade. That is, there are numerous PPNB
sites in Israel and Palestine with obsidian, and there is
no major geographic gap in the distribution from north
to south. Data from other periods remain too scanty for
reasonable reconstruction. Garfinkel [24] notes the
general decline of the obsidian trade with the end of
the Pre-Pottery Neolithic.
In significant contrast, Early Bronze Age sites in the
southern Levant are lacking obsidian. Even given the
very small number of artifacts recovered from the Camel
Site, the absence of obsidian from geographically intervening sites, especially the absence from the known
desert gateway city at Arad (e.g. [2,34,17: 67e86]),
strongly suggests that there was no down-the-line
obsidian exchange through the Mediterranean zone of
the southern Levant. The only other alternative is
a route through the Syrian and Jordanian deserts.
6.3. Function
6. Discussion and conclusions
The discovery and analysis of three obsidian artifacts
from the Early Bronze Age Camel Site offers several
conclusions beyond the simple identification of their
geological source in Anatolia. This is accomplished
through a comparison of the basic structure of the
NegeveAnatolia Early Bronze Age exchange link in all
its particulars e source, route, and function e with that
of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period, the only other
period for which obsidian has been recovered in the
Central Negev.
6.1. Source
Pre-Pottery Neolithic B obsidian from the Negev, as
defined by Nahal Lavan 109 [43], derives exclusively
from the Cappadocia area of Central Anatolia. In
general, Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic
obsidian originates primarily from this region, although
in later periods, the later Neolithic and the Chalcolithic,
Eastern Anatolian sources are also evident (e.g. [13],
(Fig. 4), [27]). However, even when eastern obsidian is
present, as at Chalcolithic Gilat [68], the Central
Anatolian sources dominate. The contrast with the
Camel materials, deriving from the Lake Van area, in
Eastern Anatolia, is obvious.
6.2. Route
Although the difference in sources between the
periods suggests the possibility of different transport
The differences between obsidian and flint in terms of
raw material properties are reasonably straightforward.
Obsidian is structurally amorphous. It is thus more
easily knapped and capable of achieving a sharper edge
than flint. It also tends to have a glossier and smoother
surface than flint. Access to obsidian in the Near East
was also more restricted than to flint. On the other hand,
flint is a less brittle material, and is somewhat harder.
The large number and range of flint sources results in
greater variability in its basic attributes. These differences are reflected in the archaeological record in what
appears to be a greater preference for obsidian in areas
where it is readily available, and an added value where it
is present, but scarce.
In the Neolithic Levant, both materials were exploited in the production of chipped stone tools, in spite
of the scarcity of obsidian. Thus, PPNB obsidian
assemblages, especially as exemplified by the materials
from Nahal Lavan 109 [9,10], include a large range of
tool types, typologically identical to those made from
flint, and the complement of debitage reflecting local
production. Obsidian, while probably perceived as
something special and perhaps more valuable than local flint, was nevertheless traded and treated as a raw
material for the production of tools.
In post-Neolithic times, the range of functions
utilizing obsidian broadens, including jewelry, magic,
medicine, vessel manufacture, mirrors, and sculpture
[16]. The three pieces recovered from the Camel Site
reflect a fundamentally different phenomenon from
the Neolithic. They are not formal tools in a lithic
782
S.A. Rosen et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 775e784
technological sense, nor can they in any way be
interpreted as raw material for tool manufacture.
Furthermore, the absence of any production waste, in
a 100% sieved site (2e3 mm mesh), indicates clearly that
they were chipped elsewhere and imported to the site as
small flakes. Thus, their only value can lie in their trinket
status as rare objects, and cannot derive from any
utilitarian function. In this they are akin to the other
trinket type artifacts recovered from the excavations,
including imported pink quartz crystals (from south
Sinai), Mediterranean and Red Sea shells and shell
beads, fresh water mother-of-pearl (Nilotic?), and
perhaps small local fossils. Notably, the Camel Site
shows evidence for ostrich eggshell bead production
[50].
These basic contrasts in the structure of the obsidian
trade in turn suggest conclusions concerning both the
nature of the obsidian exchange in the different periods,
and its role in the respective societies. Returning to the
general characteristics of ancient Near Eastern obsidian
exchange as down-the-line trade [46,47], a key element in
this trade is the mobility of the agents of exchange. BarYosef and Belfer-Cohen [4] have suggested that hunting
parties operated as prime agents in the movement of
goods and the exchange of ideas in the Pre-Pottery
Neolithic B, in fact serving as the glue cementing the
Levantine interaction sphere into a comprehensive regional unit. For our purposes here, the key point is that
PPNB mobility e i.e., hunting e extended throughout
the Levant, even in the Mediterranean farming zone, and
it constituted a primary activity among large segments of
the population. That is, the proportion of the population
engaged in hunting, i.e., mobility, must have been quite
high. Thus the movement of goods like obsidian was
relatively straightforward.
In contrast to this system of relatively high mobility
hunting, albeit tethered to sedentary villages, Levantine
Early Bronze Age society was primarily urban and
sedentary, with an economy based on cereal agriculture,
arboriculture, and domestic herd animals. Although one
could attempt to make the case that the pastoral
component of this society played a role similar to that
of the hunters of the PPNB, the parallel is not justified,
if for no other reason than the unlikelihood that more
than a fraction of the urban Early Bronze Age
population engaged in herdsmen husbandry (cf. [35:
22]).
Thus, the absence of obsidian in the Mediterranean
zone is perhaps comprehensible, a function of increasing
sedentism. This would also explain the decline in
obsidian exchange in the latest stages of the Neolithic
and the Chalcolithic. On the other hand, the development of peripheral pastoral nomadic societies on the
desert fringes, both in the east and the south (e.g.
[6,25,52]) provides a rationale for the alternative route
suggested earlier, and an agency of exchange for that
route. As with the PPNB hunters, the high mobility of
the pastoralists offers the means for the movement of
obsidian from the Anatolian source area. Unfortunately, we are still lacking the intensive exploration of these
regions necessary to confirm this hypothesis.
The significance of the trinket trade for Early Bronze
Age desert nomads should not be underestimated.
Wiessner [66] has noted the role of reciprocal exchange
among the Kalahari San, providing one of the basic
glues of the social system. The scarcity of such artifacts
as Anatolian obsidian may suggest that they were
valuable. The presence of other beads and trinkets,
deriving from a variety of sources, indicates the range
and variety of trade connections. The combination of
value and variation reflects the importance of the trinket
trade to Early Bronze Age desert pastoral society. The
apparent structural transformation of the obsidian trade
from its relatively utilitarian Neolithic antecedents to
the Bronze Age trinket trade can be tied to the
fundamental evolution of Near Eastern societies from
Neolithic farmerehunters to the complex and variegated
societies of early historic times.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Felix Burian for allowing us
to sample five artifacts from Nahal Lavan 109 for
hydration comparison purposes. Excavations at the
Camel Site were conducted with support from the Jo
Alon Center of Bedouin Research, a grant to Benjamin
Saidel from the Wenner Gren Foundation for Anthropology Research (used for doctoral research), and
moneys from the Ben-Gurion University Department
of Research Contracts. Initial analyses were undertaken
while the lead author was the Cotsen Fellow at the
Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA. Isaac Gilead
was kind enough to read a draft of the manuscript, and
Avi Gopher provided valuable discussions on ideas
presented here. Two anonymous reviewers provided
important comments which significantly improved both
the content and the clarity of the paper. The photographs of the obsidian were taken by Alter Fogel of
BGU. The map and the site plan were prepared by
Patrice Kaminsky, also of BGU. A basic OHD
bibliography is available courtesy of MG at http://
www.peak.org/obsidian/index.html.
References
[1] W.R. Ambrose, Obsidian hydration dating, in: D.R. Brothwell,
A.M. Pollard (Eds.), Handbook of Archaeological Sciences,
Wiley, New York, 2001, pp. 81e92.
S.A. Rosen et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 775e784
[2] R. Amiran, O. Ilan, M. Sebbane, Canaanite Arad: gateway city to
the wilderness, Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem, 1997
(Hebrew).
[3] A. Aspinall, S.W. Feather, C. Renfrew, Neutron activation
analysis of Aegean obsidians, Nature 237 (1972) 333e334.
[4] O. Bar-Yosef, A. Belfer-Cohen, The PPNB interaction sphere, in:
I. Hershkovitz (Ed.), People and cultures in change, BAR International Series, vol. 508, Archaeopress, Oxford, 1989, pp. 59e72.
[5] I. Beit-Arieh, Two cultures in South Sinai in the third millennium
B.C. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 263
(1986) 27e54.
[6] A. Betts, Pastoralism, in: B. Macdonald, R. Adams,
P. Bienkowski (Eds.), The Archaeology of Jordan, Sheffield
Academic Press, Sheffield, 2001, pp. 615e619.
[7] T.K. Bı́ró, I. Pozsgai, A. Vlader, Electron beam microanalyses of
obsidian samples from geological and archaeological sites, Acta
Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 38 (1986)
257e278.
[8] M.J. Blackman, Provenance studies of Middle Eastern obsidian
from sites in highland Iran, in: J.B. Lambert (Ed.), Archaeological
Chemistry e III, Advances in Chemistry Series, vol. 205,
American Chemical Society, Washington, 1984, pp. 19e50.
[9] F. Burian, E. Friedman, A note on the obsidian finds from the
Pre-Pottery Neolithic B site 109, Near Nahal Lavan, Negev,
Mitekufat Haeven 21 (1988) 95e98.
[10] F. Burian, E. Friedman, E. Mintz, Site 109 (coord. 0993/0370) e
Pre-Pottery Neolithic B, Mitekufat Haeven 14 (1976) 50e60
(Hebrew).
[11] J.R. Cann, C. Renfrew, The characterization of obsidian and its
application to the Mediterranean region, Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society 30 (1964) 111e133.
[12] M.C. Cauvin, L’obsidienne au Levant: provenances et fonctions,
Cahiers de l’Euphrate 5e6 (1991) 163e190.
[13] M.C. Cauvin, La circulation de l’obsidienne au Proche-Orient
Néolithique, in: H.G. Gebel, S.K. Kozlowski (Eds.), Neolithic
Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, ex Oriente,
Berlin, 1994, pp. 15e22.
[14] M.C. Cauvin, N. Balkan, Y. Besnus, F. Saroğlu, Origine de
l’obsidienne Cafer Höyük (Turquie): premiers résultats, Paléorient 12 (1986) 89e97.
[15] C. Chataigner, Sources des artefacts du proche Orient d’après leur
caractérisation géochimique, in: M.-C. Cauvin, A. Gourgaud,
B. Gratuze, N. Arnaud, G. Poupeau, J.-L. Poidevin, C. Chataigner
(Eds.), L’obsidienne au Proche et Moyen Orient, du Volcan à
l’outil, BAR International Series, vol. 738, Archaeopress, Oxford,
1998, pp. 273e324.
[16] E. Coqueugniot, L’obsidienne en Mediterranee orientale aux
epoques post-neolithiques, in: M.-C. Cauvin, A. Gourgaud,
B. Gratuze, N. Arnaud, G. Poupeau, J.-L. Poidevin,
C. Chataigner (Eds.), L’obsidienne au Proche et Moyen Orient du
Volcan à l’outil, BAR International Series, vol. 738, Archaeopress,
Oxford, 1998, pp. 351e362.
[17] I. Finkelstein, Living on the Fringe, Sheffield Academic Press,
Sheffield, 1995.
[18] V.M. Francaviglia, Characterization of Mediterranean obsidian
sources by classical petrochemical methods, Preistoria Alpina 20
(1984) 311e332.
[19] V.M. Francaviglia, Ancient obsidian sources on Pantelleria
(Italy), Journal of Archaeological Science 15 (1988) 109e122.
[20] V.M. Francaviglia, Obsidian sources in ancient Yemen, in: A. de
Maigret (Ed.), The Bronze Age Culture of Hawlan at-Tiyal and
Al-Hada (Republic of Yemen). A First General Report, IsMEO,
Rome, 1990, pp. 129e134.
[21] V.M. Francaviglia, Les gisements d’obsidienne hyperalcaline dans
l’ancien monde: étude comparative, Revue d’Archéometrie 14
(1990) 43e64.
783
[22] V. Francaviglia, L’origine des outils en obsidienne de Tell
Magzaliya, Tell Sotto, Yarim Tepe et Kul Tepe (Iraq), Paléorient
20 (1994) 20e31.
[23] I. Friedman, W. Long, Hydration rate of obsidian, Science 191
(1976) 347e352.
[24] Y. Garfinkel, The Yarmukian culture in Israel, Paléorient 19
(1993) 115e134.
[25] A. Garrard, S. Colledge, L. Martin, The emergence of crop
cultivation and caprine herding in the ‘‘Marginal Zone’’ of the
Southern Levant, in: D. Harris (Ed.), The Origins and Spread of
Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, UCL Press, London,
1996, pp. 204e226.
[26] I. Gilead, The microendscraper: a new tool type of the
Chalcolithic period, Tel Aviv 11 (1984) 3e10.
[27] A. Gopher, R. Barkai, O. Marder, Cultural contacts in the
Neolithic period: Anatolian obsidians in the Southern Levant, in:
M. Otte (Ed.), Anatolian prehistory at the crossroads of two
worlds II, vol. 85, ERAUL, Liege, 1998, pp. 641e650.
[28] B. Gratuze, Les méthodes de caractérisation de l’obsidienne, in:
M.-C. Cauvin, A. Gourgaud, B. Gratuze, N. Arnaud, G. Poupeau,
J.-L. Poidevin, C. Chataigner (Eds.), L’obsidienne au Proche
et Moyen Orient, du Volcan à l’outil, BAR International Series,
vol. 738, Archaeopress, Oxford, 1998, pp. 31e48.
[29] B. Gratuze, Obsidian characterization by laser ablation ICP-MS
and its application to prehistoric trade in the Mediterranean and
the Near East: sources and distribution of obsidian within the
Aegean and Anatolia, Journal of Archaeological Science 26
(1999) 869e881.
[30] B. Gratuze, J.N. Barrandon, K. Al Isa, M.-C. Cauvin, Nondestructive analysis of obsidian artefacts using nuclear techniques:
investigation of provenance of Near Eastern artefacts, Archaeometry 35 (1993) 11e21.
[31] M. Haiman, Sedentism and pastoralism in the Negev Highlands
in the Early Bronze Age: results of the Western Negev Highlands
emergency survey, in: O. Bar-Yosef, A.M. Khazanov (Eds.),
Pastoralism in the Levant: Archaeological Materials in Anthropological Perspective, Prehistory Press, Madison, 1992, pp.
93e105.
[32] D.O. Henry, Seasonal movements of fourth millennium pastoral
nomads in Wadi Hisma, Studies in the History and Archaeology
of Jordan IV (1992) 137e141.
[33] J. Keller, C. Seifried, The present status of obsidian source
identification in Anatolia and the Near East, in: C. Albore
Livadie, F. Widemann (Eds.), Volcanologie et Archéologie,
Proceedings of the European Workshop of Ravello, November
19e27, 1987 and March 30e31, 1989, PACT, vol. 25, 1990,
pp. 57e87.
[34] A. Kempinski, Urbanization and Metallurgy in Southern Canaan,
in: P. de Miroschedji (Ed.), L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge
du Bronze ancien, BAR International Series, vol. S527, Archaeopress, Oxford, 1989, pp. 163e168.
[35] A.M. Khazanov, Nomads and the Outside World, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1984.
[36] B. Kozloff, Pastoral nomadism in Sinai: an ethnoarchaeological
study, Production pastorales et société: bulletin d’ecologie et
d’anthropologie des sociétés pastorales 8 (1981) 19e24.
[37] K. Laidler, The development of the Arrhenius equation, Journal
of Chemical Education 61 (1984) 494e498.
[38] R. Lee, Chemical temperature integration, Journal of Applied
Meteorology 8 (1969) 423e430.
[39] J.J. Mazer, J.K. Bates, C.M. Stevenson, C. Bradley, Obsidians
and tektites: natural analogues for water diffusion in nuclear
waste glass, Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings
257 (1992) 513e520.
[40] J.J. Mazer, C.M. Stevenson, W. Ebert, J.K. Bates, The
experimental hydration of obsidian as a function of relative
784
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]
[56]
S.A. Rosen et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 775e784
humidity and temperature, American Antiquity 56 (1994)
504e513.
H.V. Merrick, F.H. Brown, Rapid chemical characterization of
obsidian artifacts by electron microprobe analysis, Archaeometry
26 (1984) 230e236.
H.V. Merrick, F.H. Brown, Obsidian sources and patterns of
source utilization in Kenya and northern Tanzania: some initial
findings, African Archaeological Review 2 (1984) 129e152.
I. Perlman, J. Yellin, The provenience of obsidian from Neolithic
sites in Israel, Israel Exploration Journal 30 (1980) 83e88.
J.-L. Poidevin, Les gisements d’obsidienne de Turquie et de
Transcaucasie: géologie, géochimie et chronométrie, in: M.C. Cauvin, A. Gourgaud, B. Gratuze, N. Arnaud, G. Poupeau,
J.-L. Poidevin, C. Chataigner (Eds.), L’obsidienne au Proche et
Moyen Orient, du Volcan à l’outil, BAR International Series, vol.
738, Archaeopress, Oxford, 1998, pp. 105e204.
C.B. Ramsey, OxCal Program v3.3, University of Oxford,
Radiocarbon Acceleration Unit, 1999.
A.C. Renfrew, Trade as action at a distance, in: J. Sabloff,
C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky (Eds.), Ancient Civilization and Trade,
University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, 1975, pp. 3e60.
A.C. Renfrew, Alternative models for exchange and spatial
distribution, in: T.E. Earle, J.E. Ericson (Eds.), Exchange Systems
in Prehistory, Academic Press, New York, 1977, pp. 71e90.
C. Renfrew, J.E. Dixon, J.R. Cann, Obsidian and early cultural
contact in the Near East, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 32
(1966) 30e72.
C. Renfrew, J.E. Dixon, J.R. Cann, Further analysis of Near
Eastern obsidians, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 34
(1968) 319e331.
S.A. Rosen, Beyond milk and meat: lithic evidence for economic
specialization in the Early Bronze Age pastoral periphery in the
Levant, Lithic Technology 22 (1997) 105e115.
S.A. Rosen, Lithics after the Stone Age: A Handbook of Stone
Tools from the Levant, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, 1997.
S.A. Rosen, The evolution of pastoral nomadic systems in the
Southern Levantine periphery, in: E. van den Brink, E. Yannai
(Eds.), Quest of Ancient Settlements and Landscapes. Archaeological Studies in Honour of Ram Gophna, Ramot Publishing,
Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, 2002, pp. 23e44.
S.A. Rosen, Early multi-resource nomadism: excavations at the
Camel Site in the Central Negev, Antiquity 77 (2003) 750e761.
S.A. Rosen, J. Schneider, Early Bronze Age milling stone
production and exchange in the Negev: preliminary conclusions,
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 31 (2001) 201e212.
S. Shackley (Ed.), Archaeological Obsidian Studies: Method and
Theory, Plenum, New York, 1998.
C.M. Stevenson, M. Gottesman, M. Macko, Refining the working
assumptions of obsidian hydration dating, Journal of California
and Great Basin Anthropology 22 (2000) 223e236.
[57] C.M. Stevenson, E. Knaus, J.J. Mazer, J. Bates, Homogeneity of
water content in obsidian from the Coso volcanic field:
implications for obsidian hydration dating, Geoarchaeology 8
(1993) 371e384.
[58] C.M. Stevenson, J.J. Mazer, B.E. Scheetz, Laboratory obsidian
hydration rates: theory, method, and application, in: S. Shackley
(Ed.), Archaeological Obsidian Studies: Method and Theory,
Plenum, New York, 1998, pp. 181e204.
[59] C.M. Stevenson, M.O. McCurry, Chemical characterization and
hydration rate for New Mexican obsidian sources, Geoarchaeology 5 (1990) 149e170.
[60] F. Trembour, F.L. Smith, I. Friedman, Diffusion cells for
integrating temperature and humidity over long periods of time,
in: E.V. Sayre, P.B. Vandiver, J. Druzik, C. Stevenson (Eds.),
Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology, Reno: Materials Research
Society Symposium Proceedings, vol. 123, 1990, pp. 245e251.
[61] R.H. Tykot, Characterization of the Monte Arci (Sardinia)
obsidian sources, Journal of Archaeological Science 24 (1997)
467e479.
[62] R.H. Tykot, Chemical fingerprinting and source tracing of
obsidian: the central Mediterranean trade in black gold, Accounts
of Chemical Research 35 (2002) 618e627.
[63] R.H. Tykot, Determining the source of lithic artifacts and
reconstructing trade in the ancient world, in: P.N. Kardulias,
R.W. Yerkes (Eds.), Written in Stone: the Multiple Dimensions of
Lithic Analysis, Lexington Books, Maryland, 2003, pp. 59e85.
[64] R.H. Tykot, Scientific methods and applications to archaeological
provenance studies, in: M. Martini, M. Milazzo, M. Piacentini
(Eds.), Physics Methods in Archaeometry, Proceedings of the
international school of physics ‘‘Enrico Fermi’’, vol. 15, Società
Italiana di Fisica, Bologna, Italy, 2004, pp. 407e432.
[65] O. Williams-Thorpe, Obsidian in the Mediterranean and the
Near East: a provenancing success story, Archaeometry 37 (1995)
217e248.
[66] P. Wiessner, Reconsidering the behavioral basis for style: a
case study among the Kalahari San, Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 3 (1984) 190e234.
[67] G.A. Wright, Obsidian analyses and prehistoric near eastern
trade: 7500e3500 BC, Anthropological Papers 37, Museum of
Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1969.
[68] J. Yellin, T.E. Levy, Y. Rowan, New evidence on prehistoric trade
routes: the obsidian evidence from Gilat, Israel, Journal of Field
Archaeology 23 (1996) 361e368.
[69] J. Zarins, Obsidian and the Red Sea trade. Prehistoric aspects, in:
M. Taddei, P. Callieri (Eds.), South Asian Archaeology 1987,
Proceedings of the ninth international conference of the
association of South Asian archaeologists in Western Europe,
held in the Fondazione Giorgio Cini, Island of San Giorgio
Maggiore, Venice, Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo
Oriente, Rome, 1990, pp. 507e541.